On the "List of Pteridophyta and Spermatophyta of Northeastern America," Prepared by

the Nomenclature Committee of the Botanical Club

Author(s): B. L. Robinson
Source: Botanical Gazette, Vol. 20, No. 3 (Mar., 1895), pp. 97-103
Published by: The University of Chicago Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2464671
Accessed: 30-01-2017 01:05 UTC

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms

The University of Chicago Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Botanical Gazette

This content downloaded from 41.220.68.233 on Mon, 30 Jan 2017 01:05:50 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
On the "4List of Pteridophyta and Spermatophyta of North-
easterii America," prepared by the Nomenclature Com-
mittee of the Botanical Club.
B. L. ROBINSON.

In the discussions of the botanical nomenclature at the

Rochester meeting of the American Association there was a
decided feeling upon the part of many that more exact data
were requisite to any satisfactory action. A series of rules
was provisionally adopted and it was wisely urged that be-
fore the merits of the code could be estimated it would be
necessary to see its application to some considerable part of
our flora. Prof. Britton,at much expense of time and trouble,
with the assistance of some others, has prepared under the
above title a list of the flowering plants of the eastern states
and Canada, selecting the names according to the Rochester
code and its modification at Madison. This list possesses
considerable interest, as it contains the expression of the
latest phase of nomenclature reform in America and affords a
much more satisfactory basis for the decision of the questions
at issue than has hitherto been gained from vague generaliza-
tions and isolated instances.
In estimating the system of nomenclature illustrated by this
list all considerations of sentiment may be passed with brief
mention. It is natural that every working botanist should
greatly regret giving up names long associated with certain
plants, but there would certainly be few who would not make
all due concession in this regard if really assured of a stable
nomenclature as a reward of their sacrifices. Before leaving
the matter of sentiment, however, it may be noted that it has
not been confined to the conservative botanist, who regrets
the proposed displacement of established names. It is
equally exhibited by the reforming botanist, who maintains
that he is impelled to make these changes by justice to the
earlier authors. For slight examination shows that this idea
of justice is often of the sentimental rather than the practical
sort. The revival of old and obscure names undoes in many
instances the most careful work of subsequent authors, and
this, too, from no fault of theirs, for the rules affecting their
[97]

This content downloaded from 41.220.68.233 on Mon, 30 Jan 2017 01:05:50 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 98 The Botanical Gazette. [March,

work were not invented until many years after its publication.
Certainly this is a robbing Peter to pay Paul principle of
justice. That there have been many cases of arbitrary change
and consequent injustice in the past no one will deny, but it
is very doubtful whether these injuries can be righted at pres-
ent by making more arbitrary changes. Certainly the reform
exhibited in the present list does not altogether tend to per-
petuate the older combinations of the injured authors, but
much more to the renaming of a considerable portion of our
flora and the forming of a multiplicity of entirely new combi-
nations with new authorities. But passing these considera-
tions, which as they do not directly affect the practical side of
nomenclature may perhaps be regarded as sentimental, we
come to the more important question: Is the new system
one which possesses the elements of permanency?
It is one of the principal arguments for the stability of the
proposed code that it is a rigid one, which permits no excep-
tions and, to use an expression of a leader in nomenclature
reform, "leaves nothing to individual judgment." It is well-
known, however, to every working botanist that even the se-
lection of the first specific name, after the still more difficult
choice of the generic, involves a constant exercise of judg-
ment of the most critical sort, both as regards the exact appli-
cation of brief and unsatisfactory descriptions and the often
doubtful priority of publications. Even the form of the name
is sometimes subjected to individual judgment or arbitrary
modification in the new system as well as the old, as an illus-
tration will show. It has occurred to a number of writers
that the sweet alyssum, common in cultivation, should be
separated as a distinct genus. The history of its synonymy
is as follows: Upon page 420 of his Families des Plantes, in
I 763, Adanson sets up the genus Konig, founded upon Cljy
maritime L. (Alyssum mnaritimuin Lam.), with little descrip-
tion and largely by referring by number to the species of Lin-
nocus. In I 814 Desvaux, also of the opinion that the Lamarcki-
an Alyssunm maritimum should be separated from the other alys-
sums, carefully described it under the correctly latinized name
Lobularia. In I826, Robert Brown revived the name Konig,
modifying it to Koniga and dedicating the genus to a friend,
then curator of the British Museum, whose name by a strange
chance was Konig anglicized from. Konig). In i89i, Prof.
Prantl, revising the CRUCIFERPE for the Nat. Pflanzenfamilien,

This content downloaded from 41.220.68.233 on Mon, 30 Jan 2017 01:05:50 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
i895.] On the "List of Pleridophyta, etc." 99

wisely selects as the correct designation of the genus the first

properly latinized name Lobularia. Now Prof. Britton takes
a rather singular course by pronouncing Adanson's Konig a
misprint for Koniga. This action is entirely unwarranted by
fact, both from the circumstance that Konzg occurs in same
form several times in Adanson's work and on account of that
author's well-known disregard for latinization. Prof. Britton
takes this as an entirely arbitrary expedient for setting up a
name which would otherwise from its uncouth form be de-
servedly neglected. But what must be the outcome of such
arbitrary actions as this? Is nothing here left to individual
judgment? How can Prof. Britton be sure that Konig is a
misprint for Koniga and not for Konigies, Konigi-urn or Koni-
gant/izis? Is it likely that other authors will agree upon this
point? But this is not all. If Prof. Britton may coin from
an unlatinized word a generic name, how may an erratic
writer be prevented fromn taking up any vernacular name from
English or German, Dutch or Russian, if having discovered
its use in some work of the last century he only pronounces it
a misprint, and by the ready addition of an us, a, or urn uses
it to displace a later generic name? A system which upon
the precedent of its chief exponent permits such vagaries as
this is certainly not likely to have the desired stability.
The choice of Konzga as the earliest generic name is note-
worthy as illustrating another point. It will be remembered
that at Madison special legislation was demanded and se-
cured to establish the so-called principle of priority by posi-
tion, according to which if two genera or two species are
published in the same work and subsequently united, the
name standing first in the book is the authorized one, there
being no difference in the time of publication. Now although
Konig is used on the 420th page of Adanson's work to des-
ignate the sweet alyssum, that author states in an erratum that
the reader is to substitute for Konig, Aduseton. A radical
reformer might, it is true, refuse to Adanson the right to take
back a name once published, but the peculiar feature of this
case is that the errata of this work, while doubtless written
after its completion, have been uniformly bound in front
of the regularly numbered pages; at least such is the case
in the three copies of the work accessible to the writer. Thus
Adanson's correction, advocating Aduseton, has many pages
of what Prof. Britton has termed priority of position over the
description of Konig.

This content downloaded from 41.220.68.233 on Mon, 30 Jan 2017 01:05:50 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 100 The Botanical Gazelle, [March,

The case is interesting merely as a good instance of many

in which zeal in searching for the earliest designation leads
to the consideration of names so involved that several inter-
pretations are equally possible. In passing it may also be
noted that Prof. Britton's Koniga maritime is long antedated
by the same combination by Robert Brown, a writer whose
works the reforming botanists can scarcely afford to over-
look.
It will be generally admitted that a system of nomenclat-
ure is unsatisfactory in which the botanist who characterizes
and names a new species with all due care that he is not dup-
licating an existing name, nevertheless can not be at all sure
but that the name so carefully chosen may at once be dis-
placed through no fault of his. Yet such is the case under
the Rochester and Madison rules. When Nuttall made the
combination Chrysopsis pilosa, it was a new binomial applied
to a good new species evidently belonging to the genus
under which it was placed, and never before described in this
or any other genus. Can any author hope in describing a
species in the future to do better than this? Under the long
established usage of conservative botanists such a name would
be inviolable; under the Madison rules, however, Prof. Brit-
ton is able to displace it by combining the same specific name
to the same generic but to designate an entirely different
plant, namely Chrrysopsis pilosa Britton (Erigeron pilosa
Walt.), making thereby a most useless and pernicious syn-
onymn of Nuttall's name, which has every right to stand.
It is not the special case that is here important, but the
general principle, which permits such changes and will con-
tinue to permit them in the future. The upheaval of nomen-
clature under this law will not cease even when most of the
obscure names of the past have been sought out. It will al-
ways be possible for a botanist through perfectly conscien-
tious work to readjust generic lines so that species of the
same specific name are thrown together. In such cases under
the prevalent usage that species which was already under the
genus retained stands fast. But according to the Madison rule,
as we have just seen, if the species brought into the genus
chances to have an olderspecific namethanthespeciesalready
in the genus, both plants are to be re-named instead of only
one. It does not seem to have occurred to the reformers
that this ruling, far from being conducive to stability, would,

This content downloaded from 41.220.68.233 on Mon, 30 Jan 2017 01:05:50 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
1895.] On the "List of P/eyidophyat, etc." Ioi

especially when combined with another of their dicta, give per-

petual opportunity for change, since it will always be possible
for an erratic botanist to throw together large genera like
As/er and Erigeron, Bidens and Coreopsis, Panicurn and Pas-
palum, thereby displacing many specific names which accord-
ing to the rule of "once a synonym always a synonym" can
never be revived! This outcome seems so preposterous that
it must be stated that it is not merely the writer's own un-
authorized interpretation but the distinctly expressed al-
though unpublished view of one of the compilers of the list,
who has been among the foremost in the cause of nomenclat-
ure reform.
It is impossible here to criticise in detail the bibliographical
work in the list. It is well known that it has been done gra-
tuitously by those who, pressed with other duties, could ill
afford the time, so that slips may well be overlooked. Never-
theless it must be confessed that it is disappointing to find
such obvious evidences of haste, not to say carelessness, in
this regard. Why, for instance, should fodanthus pinnaitfi-
dus be ascribed to Prantl when it was used long ago in
Steudel's Nomenclator (with synonym), again by Gray in the
Proceedings of the American Academy, again by Watson in the
Botany of the King Expedition? The fact that Prantl himself
was ignorant of these earlier publications is but a poor ex-
cuse for an American botanist well armed with Watson's
Bibliographical Index or the recently issued Index Kewensis,
in both of which the combination is cited. Or why should
the place of publication of Celokowski's genus Stenop/iragma
be given as CEsterr. Bot. Zeitschr. 27: 177, where there is
merely a review by Dichtl of Celokowski's Flora von Bdlznen,
while the publication of the genus was not even in this latter
work, but some years before in the Regensburg Flora? How-
ever, every one should be aware of the great difficulty of free-
ing such a list from errors of this kind.
A more significant fact in regard to the work is the num-
ber of changes of name which have resulted from readjust-
ments of generic lines and from a modified conception of the
dignity of the species. It cannot fail to strike the botanist
who glances over this list that many of its species are founded
upon plants which by such experienced botanists as Hooker,
Gray, Watson, and others have generally been regarded as
varieties. Of course it is not denied that the reverse case
often obtains. A corresponding change (and here a distinct
depreciation) in the dignity of the variety is shown by Prof.

This content downloaded from 41.220.68.233 on Mon, 30 Jan 2017 01:05:50 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 102 The Botanical Gazelte. [March,

Britton's many "albifloras," covering forms of which Dr. Gray,

in a letter recently published, wrote: "yWhen the new edi-
tion of the Manual comes out it will have a no/a bene.: Ex-
pect a white-flowered state of every colored species. They
are sure to turn up sooner or later. And I find it no oood
therefore to say var. a/ba over and over." If it should be
urged that, upon the basis of former publications, Gerardia
purptlica a/b/llora Britton, G. tenuiflora a/biflora I3ritton,
Genti/ana Anzdrewsii albiflora Britton. etc., are to be re-
garded merely as forms and not as varieties, it may be asked
whether the trinomial system adopted in the list has not a
considerable defect if it cannot indicate the difference between
a well-marked variety and a mere form. Whether the nam-
ing of forms is at present desirable may well remain an open
question, but there can be no doubt that such a course is a
general tendency of exhaustive systematic study, and accord-
ingly a style of nomenclature in which there is no distinction
between subspecific, varietal, and formal differences is likely
to appear to future botanists a rather clumsy tool. However,
to return to the interpretation of groups, I would not be taken
as even hinting that every botanist has not a perfect right to
put his own construction upon the limits of genera, species,
and varieties. But it should be apparent to those sanguine
supporters of reform, who hope to derive stability from it,
that here again everything depends upon individual judgment
and must alxva)ys do so.
In the light of what has been said, it seems sufficiently evi-
dent that the new system, far from furnishing a satisfactory
solution to the nomenclature question, fails even to offer r such
substantial advantages over the existing system as greater
clearness and prospect of permanency, for which alone work-
ing botanists could afford to make such sweeping changes in
their language. It is readily granted that the Rochester and
Madison rules were formed with care, and with earnest hope
of securing uniformity. But they represent what may be ex-
pected of rigid codes. Exact rules cannot be consistently
applied to such varying circumstances without leading to
many incongruities, especially when such action is made ret-
rogressive. It is worthy of note that even Dr. Kuntze, who
has certainly made the greatest effort to be consistent, has
recently objected strenuously to the principle of "once a syn-
onym always a synonym," expressing grave doubts whether
after all several hundred genera and some thousands of spe-
cies should be renamed on account of rules invented long
after their publication.

This content downloaded from 41.220.68.233 on Mon, 30 Jan 2017 01:05:50 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
1895.] On the "LisI of Pleridophyla, etc." I03
Uniformity, consistency and stability of nomenclature are
in the opinion of the writer unattainable. The sanction of
particular associations will never make rules able to control
all authors. There will, it is true, be those whose sanguine
ideas lead them. to follow with conscientious zeal a proposed
new system; there will also be those who, however unpopular
they may make themselves, will hesitate to change to what
they are confident cannot be permanent; and there will al-
ways be a third class, who at once set about modifying and
improving the measures proposed. This third element is of
course the serious obstacle to successful reform, since its ex-
istence dispels all hope of a permanent system. It will be
remembered in this connection that within a year after the
Madison convention a prominent radical member, who as-
sisted in framing the Madison rules, was publishing exten-
sively upon an entirely different system.
While this view of nomenclature may seem unduly pessimis-
tic it may be said in its justification that there is a much more
important quality of nomenclature than stability and consist-
ency, namely that of ready intelligibility. It has of late been
the fashion among the reforming botanists to decry the ex-
isting nomenclature as hopelessly involved and confused.
Strangely enough this cry comes quite as often from the
physiologist and anatomist as the systematist. It arises,
however, in great part at least, from a misapprehension,
since the working monographer, who is studying the plants
themselves, is seldom seriously troubled in understanding the
nomenclature of former writers. The difficulties which con-
front him are much more those of variation in plants, frag-
mentary types or insufficient description, etc., and not those
of nomenclature pure and simple. Nor has the writer of to-
day any difficulty in conveying accurately his ideas of plant
relationship through the medium of the existing nomencla-
ture. For instance no writer using the well established name
Calylcanlh/us could be misunderstood, while the names Beurer
Bit/nera, and Biittnera, recently advanced for the genus,
never can be more intelligible than the one in use, and the very
fact that these three names have within as many years been
successively brought forward, each as the only correct desig-
nation of the genus, affords little encouragement to think
that any one of them is likely long to replace the old and
familiar name.
Cambridg, e, Mass.

This content downloaded from 41.220.68.233 on Mon, 30 Jan 2017 01:05:50 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms